Usccb Allows Guitars At Mass

[franciscanheart]

What I want to know is why no one wants to let me play my uke. That poo is beautiful.

[Socrates]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43FEcc3pDLs[/media]

[Jaime]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1345070242' post='2468266']
Same if I were to tune the mandolin string pairs to E-B-G-D then.
[/quote]

I wouldn't have the first clue how to play that. Perhaps upside down.

You don't want to admit to what is obvious, that's your call. Perhaps you are being funny?

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1345070505' post='2468274']
I wouldn't have the first clue how to play that. Perhaps upside down.

You don't want to admit to what is obvious, that's your call. Perhaps you are being funny?
[/quote]
I'm really not. I could pluck out a tune on a xylophone, sure. You're telling me you couldn't pluck out a melody on a single string of a mandolin?

[Norseman82]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrCPIrs90eg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrCPIrs90eg[/url]

[Jaime]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1345071228' post='2468278']
I'm really not. I could pluck out a tune on a xylophone, sure. You're telling me you couldn't pluck out a melody on a single string of a mandolin?
[/quote]

I'm saying that without knowing anything about the mandolin, I would not be able to sight read. Likewise a mandolin player would have the same problem with guitar. You could sight read on a xylophone

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1345071571' post='2468282']
I'm saying that without knowing anything about the mandolin, I would not be able to sight read. Likewise a mandolin player would have the same problem with guitar. You could sight read on a xylophone
[/quote]
Okay, I'm going to cede the point, just because this is so tangential, that I don't know how it even relates to whether guitars are allowed to be used in Mass, and if we're going to go in circles about something, it might as well be something worthwhile.

[Jaime]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1345072031' post='2468287']
Okay, I'm going to cede the point, just because this is so tangential, that I don't know how it even relates to whether guitars are allowed to be used in Mass, and if we're going to go in circles about something, it might as well be something worthwhile.
[/quote]

YEAHHHH !!! IN YO FACE!!! I WON THE DEBATE OF WHETHER OR NOT AN ORGANIST COULD SIGHT READ A SINGLE LINE ON A XYLOPHONE!!


wait...

[missionseeker]

ok... I'm not really going to quote so if I don't say exactly what you said, don't get mad at me.


The analogy of the xylophone and organ is off because those two are really in no way even related. The guitar and the mandolin ARE similar. They are both stringed instruments, they are both fretted, they are both plucked (or strummed), AND there is a loooong history of secular associations for both. Xylophones (as far as I recall) are also not expressly banned. Yet their similarity to the piano (both percussion, both played with hammers/mallets, similar keyboard type look) should tell anyone that they are not appropriate for use in the Mass.

Pointing out that he said "cythara" was probably just me being a little nitpicky. Cythara/Kithara/Chitarra are pretty much the same word - even though they've had many different meanings throughout the centuries.Although, I do not think that most scholars would agree with you about it being a harp. Most would say that is was more similar to a guitar/lute/mandolin than to a harp. The transliterations and developments of the stringed instruments in that family were so varried that it's not 100% certain that that was without a doubt no room for error a harp.

You never answered me why it was not ok for someone to play the organ until it was [i]expressly approved[/i] but it is ok to play the guitar until it is [i]expressly disallowed. [/i]

You keep bring up the first 300 years the organ was played saying that it was liturgical abuse to play it then (I have no problem with that. If the Church hadn't approved it then, they probably shouldn't have been useing it at Mass). But then you also say that it's perfectly fine to use guitars as long as there is nothing that formally bans it. If playing the organ was liturgical abuse, why then, is it ok to play the guitar. Especially given that the guitar fits into categories of instruments that ARE explicitly banned (plucked/strummed string instruments, instruments associated with secular/profane music, and those instruments which [unless aided by external amplification] are not as suited for congregational singing)

[Jaime]

for some reason this thread isn't loading properly...

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1345075829' post='2468304']
ok... I'm not really going to quote so if I don't say exactly what you said, don't get mad at me.


The analogy of the xylophone and organ is off because those two are really in no way even related. The guitar and the mandolin ARE similar. They are both stringed instruments, they are both fretted, they are both plucked (or strummed), AND there is a loooong history of secular associations for both. Xylophones (as far as I recall) are also not expressly banned. Yet their similarity to the piano (both percussion, both played with hammers/mallets, similar keyboard type look) should tell anyone that they are not appropriate for use in the Mass.

Pointing out that he said "cythara" was probably just me being a little nitpicky. Cythara/Kithara/Chitarra are pretty much the same word - even though they've had many different meanings throughout the centuries.Although, I do not think that most scholars would agree with you about it being a harp. Most would say that is was more similar to a guitar/lute/mandolin than to a harp. The transliterations and developments of the stringed instruments in that family were so varried that it's not 100% certain that that was without a doubt no room for error a harp.
[/quote]

To be technical, a piano is a keyed zither. It is not like a xylophone; it is more akin to...well, a zither (which came from the word cythara, and refers to what is now commonly called a chromaharp (or lap harp)).


Now...

(1) Does having one instrument being preferred automatically mean that others are inappropriate?

(2) What does "secular instrument" or "instruments associated with secular music" mean? All instruments are secular and associated with profane music; no instrument was created expressly for use in the Mass.




Oh, and the organ also has a loooong history of secular association. It was originally invented in the third century, B.C., was used in silent films in theater, and is still used for profane purposes today. Just saying. I am not saying that you, specifically, have done this, but I have heard people speak as though Jesus Himself invented to organ specifically for the Mass.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Tally Marx

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I used to attend a latin mass and the high mass had no instruments except the priest,choir and congregations voice. Be careful your not idolising this organ, or guitar. Or you may find sometimes in the future GOD removing all instruments from the holy mass. Possibly this is what you wan't ? Than it would be conspiring against musical instruments which are neither good or evil, though one could whack somone hard enough with a flute that they may drop dead. Shall we remove your tounge also, coz i tell you what that is the most evil of all instruments, jesus told me so in holy scripture.

St Paul. "conspire for the holy spirit."

Edited August 16, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Jaime]

Ok I'm going to quote you so don't get mad at me

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1345075829' post='2468304']
ok... I'm not really going to quote so if I don't say exactly what you said, don't get mad at me.


The analogy of the xylophone and organ is off because those two are really in no way even related. The guitar and the mandolin ARE similar. They are both stringed instruments, they are both fretted, they are both plucked (or strummed), AND there is a loooong history of secular associations for both. Xylophones (as far as I recall) are also not expressly banned. Yet their similarity to the piano (both percussion, both played with hammers/mallets, similar keyboard type look) should tell anyone that they are not appropriate for use in the Mass.

Pointing out that he said "cythara" was probably just me being a little nitpicky. Cythara/Kithara/Chitarra are pretty much the same word - even though they've had many different meanings throughout the centuries.Although, I do not think that most scholars would agree with you about it being a harp. Most would say that is was more similar to a guitar/lute/mandolin than to a harp. The transliterations and developments of the stringed instruments in that family were so varried that it's not 100% certain that that was without a doubt no room for error a harp.

You never answered me why it was not ok for someone to play the organ until it was [i]expressly approved[/i] but it is ok to play the guitar until it is [i]expressly disallowed. [/i]

You keep bring up the first 300 years the organ was played saying that it was liturgical abuse to play it then (I have no problem with that. If the Church hadn't approved it then, they probably shouldn't have been useing it at Mass). But then you also say that it's perfectly fine to use guitars as long as there is nothing that formally bans it. If playing the organ was liturgical abuse, why then, is it ok to play the guitar. Especially given that the guitar fits into categories of instruments that ARE explicitly banned (plucked/strummed string instruments, instruments associated with secular/profane music, and those instruments which [unless aided by external amplification] are not as suited for congregational singing)
[/quote]

The cythera thing comes down to this. Here is the original mistranslation that you quoted.

[quote][color=#000000][font=Times New Roman][size=1][size=4]Venerable Brethren, will see that, if in your churches musical instruments are introduced, you will not tolerate any instruments along with the organ, except the tuba, the large and small tetrachord, the flute, the lyres and the lute, provided these serve to strengthen and support the voices. You will instead exclude the tambourines, cors da classe, trumpets, flutes, harps, guitars and in general all instruments that give a theatrical swing to music[/size].[/size][/font][/color][/quote]

You used this to say Pope Benedict had made a declarative statement banning the guitar from mass. I then showed that the closer translation of that paragraph was this

[quote]We have not omitted to request the Council of wise men and distinguished Masters of music. According to their opinion, Ella, venerable Brother get that in its churches, if in them there is the use of playing musical instruments, organ, are allowed only those tools that are designed to strengthen and support the voices of singers, as are the cetra, the major and minor tetrachord, bassoon, viola, violin. Exclude the timpani, hunting horns, trumpets, Oboes, flutes, flautini, harps, [b]Mandolins [/b]and similar instruments, which make the theatrical music.[/quote]

Then you came back and said that he uses the word cythara and say that he means guitar. Reread your translation or this one
[quote]We will strive to affirm that, at the time of s. Tommaso d Aquino, there was some Church l use of musical singing accompanied by musical instruments. You can, however, say that this practice did not exist in the churches known by the Holy Doctor; and so it seems that he was not in favour of this kind of singing. Treating the issue in [i]Summa Theologiae [/i](2, 91, 2., art. 2) "[i]If the divine praises we should use the chanting[/i]", replied [b]Yes. [/b][b]But the fourth objection, formulated by him, that the Church is not in divine praises soles use musical instruments like the lyre and harp[/b], in order not to seem to Judaizing on the basis of what you read in Psalm: "[i][b]Confitemini Domino in cythara, psalterio decem chordarum psallite ill[/b]i; Celebrate the Lord on the zither, salmeggiate him with ten-stringed harp[/i]"he responds:"[i]These musical instruments excite pleasure rather than place inwardly to Godliness; in the Old Testament were used because the people were more coarse and carnal, and was allettarlo by means of these instruments, as with earthly promises[/i]. " It also adds that, in the old testament, had value of types or shadows of certain realities: "[i]because these tools materials depicted other things[/i]".[/quote]

He's quoting Aquinas in the original latin. Pope Benedict talks about how Aquinas doesn't care for the lyre and the harp then he quotes Aquinas! Which is why you see the word Cythara. There is no question that Benedict is talking about Aquinas's objection to the harp. And most experts would agree with me. Context is everything. (For the record we do not know what Aquinas's opinion of the guitar would be but there are many that think he would have loved Johnny Cash) If Pope Benedict wanted to name the guitar, he certainly could have. They chitarras had been common place in Italy (five string single form) for over 100 years. But he doesn't. People intentionally changed mandolin to guitar when quoting him. I think that's a shame.

[quote]You keep bring up the first 300 years the organ was played saying that it was liturgical abuse to play it then (I have no problem with that. If the Church hadn't approved it then, they probably shouldn't have been useing it at Mass). But then you also say that it's perfectly fine to use guitars as long as there is nothing that formally bans it. If playing the organ was liturgical abuse, why then, is it ok to play the guitar. Especially given that the guitar fits into categories of instruments that ARE explicitly banned (plucked/strummed string instruments, instruments associated with secular/profane music, and those instruments which [unless aided by external amplification] are not as suited for congregational singing)[/quote]

There I go quoting you again!

Again it has to do with context. The Church is an organic entity and things that aren't considered dogmatic are open to change and growth. When the organ was introduced to Mass, it was a profane/secular instrument. It was introduced well before it was specifically allowed. It was an abuse and a lot of bishops priests and laypeople were offended by it. Do you wonder what changed people's mind? Several things! People got better at building organs, people got better at playing organs and most importantly, people got much much better at writing for the organ.

Now we look at today. You have correctly quoted documents that while not specifically naming the guitar do describe its characteristics. It is an instrument that doesn't work well with a bow (Jimmy Page looked stupid doing it) It is plucked or strummed. And here is the the key argument in your favor . The Church's instructions for liturgy are prescriptive not proscriptive. The Church tells us what we can do in liturgy and doesn't have to outline everything we can't do. She will give some examples but that isn't how we are to read liturgical instruction. For example, no where in the GIRM or in any Vatican II documents does it say that I cannot bring a cow to mass and have it blessed. They don't have to because liturgical documents are prescriptive.

So we have documents that without expressly naming the guitar, say that it is unfit for mass. End of story? Not when 50% of all Catholics in the world are allowed to have guitar at mass. Not when most if not all diocesan bishops in the US give permission for guitars to be played. And certainly not when guitars have been showing up and playing at Papal masses at World Youth Day.


Here's an interesting thing to throw into the mix. When synthesizers were first introduced to the public, the sounds were created through wave form. It was new and it was interesting but musicians found that it left people unsettled after a while. People were getting more agitated the more they listened to it. Why? Because wave based synthesized sounds didn't decay. They didn't have what was referred to as "breath". This is why there was such a strong move away from wave form sound to sampled sounds. You've majored in music so I have no doubt you have studied composition. You've seen that composers built points to breathe in their works. So what's my point?

While the pipe organ may emulate how the human voice works, the guitar breathes.


The guitar is considered today to be profane and secular. So was the organ when it was first introduced. The guitar is not allowed by liturgical instruction. Neither was the organ when it was first introduced. But while the rules were expressly against the organ, the music and the instrument continued to get better. It began as a loud raucous instrument used at festivals and associated with brothels and grew into an instrument that has pride of place in the Church. With half the Catholics (not including the US) in the world going to mass every weekend and celebrating a mass with the guitar as the chief instrument, there is every possibility that the guitar will be universally accepted as well.

You and others can disagree with that opinion and you have every right to do so. But when people state (or just infer) that masses that include guitar are automatically less reverent and sacred, then those people are stating that Latin American Catholics are all having a less reverent mass.

That's why I popped into the debate.

[Adrestia]

My church's musicians play a piano and a violin. I feel like the violin has been ignored in these debates.

[font=georgia,serif][b][color=#0000FF][size=7]VIOLIN[/size][/color][/b][/font]


okay, go!

[Jaime]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1345085134' post='2468398']
My church's musicians play a piano and a violin. I feel like the violin has been ignored in these debates.

[font=georgia,serif][b][color=#0000FF][size=7]VIOLIN[/size][/color][/b][/font]


okay, go!
[/quote]

I personally advocate for a nonviolin approach to our problems